• Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    This still applies.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But what liberty is essential? Proveably secret postcards to people on the other side of the world?

      That's also quite a harsh quote to bring in the context of the many hidden erosions of privacy - would you say the tick-tockers don't deserve privacy or safety because they chose that social ability over a privacy they little understand?

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Essential in the sense of privacy being central to our nature. We all deserve, and indeed, need our privacy. In the USA, the 4th Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…" without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Any reasonable modern interpretation of that amendment should include electronic documents and communication.

        I'm not sure why you would think that I believe tick-tockers should not have privacy protection. Any app that invades the users 'privacy should be banned for the same reason that end-to-end encryption should not be banned. If Tick-Tock refuses to respect the privacy of people's non-Tick Tock communication then the app should be banned.

        • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Essential in the sense of privacy being central to our nature

          Yeah, I'm on board with that. Really what I was thinking about was imagining a world where internet presence is not a place where there's privacy - like if you meet a friend in public, and talk on a park bench, you can't assume no one will see you. You know that, and accept that, and adapt accordingly.

          I want a world where internet communications are private and their metadata are also private, and my internet use is private… But I'm contemplating the what ifs of a different world, and how best to live in it, and how to help my children and children's children live in it. I do think fighting for better laws and protections is part of that and I'm incredibly grateful for people like the eff; but I think it's also worth thinking about how we can find ways to live in a new environment, understanding that society's rules around us don't always work in the best ways.

          (On that note: you're quoting the US Constitution a matter of EU ruling…)

          I'm not sure why you would think that I believe tick-tockers should not have privacy protection.

          Just your quote, that says such people who give up some liberty don't deserve any. I suppose you didn't mean it that way but it seemed harsh.

          • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just your quote, that says such people who give up some liberty don’t deserve any. I suppose you didn’t mean it that way but it seemed harsh.

            Fair. Old Ben meant it harshly, I'm sure.

            As for the internet being a public space where privacy shouldn't be assumed, I have to disagree. There is far too much activity on the net that would never be conducted in a place where there is no assumption of privacy. Clearly things like banking matters need to be private and secure, but I include in this things like romantic matters. If any government can access any data on the internet that they want they any oppressive government will do so. In addition, any opening for government will be exploited sooner or later by criminals as well.